The original Girl with the Dragon Tattoo next faces off with Holmes and Watson!

Ahoy, squirts! Quint here. Noomi Rapace, the actress who first brought Lisbeth Salander to the silver screen in the Swedish film adaptations of Seig Larson's insanely popular series of books which began with The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo. David Fincher, as you should damn well know by now, is helming an English-language remake. Unfortunately Ms. Rapace is being replaced with the up and coming Rooney Mara.
Don't be sad, though. Noomi is set to be the female lead of the SHERLOCK HOLMES sequel opposite Robert Downey Jr.'s Sherlock Holmes and Jude Law's Dr. Watson according to the lovely Borys Kit at his Heat Vision Blog. He doesn't know exactly what part Noomi is to play, but there's speculation she's a French gypsy.

There's no mention of Rachel McAdams in Borys' article, so I have no idea if she'll be back, but we do know that Moriarty will be a pivotal figure this time out, Sherlock's smarter brother Mycroft is involved and that Guy Ritchie is returning to direct.
I don't know about you guys, but I had a blast with the first Sherlock flick and am excited to see the band get back together for a sequel. And Rapace was fantastic in THE GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO, so seeing her play with Downey and Law could be a lot of fun.
Thoughts?
-Quint
quint@aintitcool.com
Follow Me On Twitter

just a disgrace to the character. and that's coming from someone who likes both Law and Downey, Jr., but the movie they made had little to do with Sherlock Holmes and was nothing but a brand name cash grab by a snarky, Hollywoodized Dickensian-era detective. it lacked any kind of believable reality; I mean, come on, those fight scenes were ludicrous, embarassingly laughable. a big steaming pile of self-aware hack job bullshit.

I really felt for the poor people involved in "Sherlock Holmes and the Curse of the Black Pearl". What a strange mess of a movie with almost nothing to do with the original title character. And now they make a sequel?! I know, money talks, but midget iron man RDJ should be able to cherry pick his projects?

The book was mentioned in some distant talkback and upon picking it up, was surprised how good it was. Same goes for the sequel. Basically Indiana Jones in the world of Arthur Conan Doyle. Of course, because it's quality, we'll never ever see it adapted.

They should have paid her big money to reprise her role. More than they are paying Daniel Craig, cheap bastards. Yeah Fincher, I'm calling you out, big time you've become a slave to Hollywood and you need to bring your art back. I know you're reading... it's not too late to er-cast and pay Rapace what she deserves.

I really wish you'd both get your heads out of your asses and actually learn about a character before you shoot off your big mouths in yet another episode of "Look at me, I'm so cynical therefore I am cool".
Downey's Sherlock, while not physically similar to what Doyle described, shares many of the personality traits and skills that Sherlock had in the books, including his eccentric ways, fighting skills (which where not used a lot lot in the books, yet were there), his disguise skills, his sometimes antisocial behavior, etc. It's probably the closest version next to Jeremy Butler, and definitely way more faithful than Basil Rathbone's. As for Watson, Jude Law's is probably the closest we've gotten, considering the character was a soldier, a ladies man, and a gambler, not a fat, bumbling idiot.
So please, try to do some actual research before you go on your little bitter hateful e-tirades or shut the fuck up.

Read a lot of Sherlock Holmes, first in Swedish and later in English, only in the Americanized translation was he a full on Action Hero... Taking the most obvious parts of Sherlock Holmes and putting them on Jack Sparrow Lite is so lazy. Did you honestly, with all your SH knowledge, leave the theater feeling you had seen a Sherlock Holmes adventure? If so, good for you, I didn't. No hate.

The general positive reviews goesn't give me confidence either. I have seen terrible movies which updated older classics getting general good reviews before and lok at how it turned out! No, man, i'm in no hurry to watch that Sherlock Holmes movie much.

"...try to do some actual research before you go on your little bitter hateful e-tirades or shut the fuck up". Jeremy Butler? So when did this 'Jeremy Butler' play Sherlock Holmes then? Oh wait, you mean Jeremy BRETT?! Wow, it looks like you fucked up big time in your 'hateful e-tirade' and that was probably due to a lack of 'actual research'. You must be kicking yourself right now. I wonder if we'll hear anything more from you in this talkback? I seriously doubt it, but please, prove me wrong.

Sept. 12, 2010, 9:23 a.m. CST

by dukeroberts

"Noomi Rapace, the actress who first brought Lisbeth Salander to the silver screen in the Swedish film adaptations of Seig Larson's insanely popular series of books which began with The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo." What a horrible sentence. It's like a long sentence fragment.

It left me a little cold too. I felt they concentrated too much on the action and not enough on the investigating and mental skills of Holmes. That is why it didn't seem Holmesian enough to me. And the CGI from that pier scene was awful.

I agree with Bvc, and I would add that Jeremy Brett did SUCH a fine job that any other screen interpretation needs to be profoundly different if it's not to be seen as a carbon copy. So maybe the Downey Jnr DID change the emphasis, but it was all inspired by the source. We know from the books that Sherlock can fight with his fists: can you REALLY see Benedict Cumberbatch doing that? (His interpretation seems to be 'clever, conceited asshole'.) Ditto the ability to speak to street urchins etc - you see Downey Jnr telling a story to the guys in prison, but Cumberbatch looks as though he'd be unable to speak to anyone who didn't go to RADA. Finally, it's amusing that the BBC adap did the Hollywood prequel thing of 'showing how Holmes and Watson met up' - something that I had no interest in seeing. Ritchie's effort did the more interesting thing of showing the relationship when it was already at breaking point - which was a lot of fun. I thought the sequence where Downey Jnr improvises the disguise was brilliant - it was such a departure from the usual interpretation of Holmes as a bit of a luvvie. (I would, sadly, agree with Batman above who says that Downey mumbled his lines - he did and it was very difficult to hear!)

I agree with Bvc, and I would add that Jeremy Brett did SUCH a fine job that any other screen interpretation needs to be profoundly different if it's not to be seen as a carbon copy. So maybe the Downey Jnr DID change the emphasis, but it was all inspired by the source. We know from the books that Sherlock can fight with his fists: can you REALLY see Benedict Cumberbatch doing that? (His interpretation seems to be 'clever, conceited asshole'.) Ditto the ability to speak to street urchins etc - you see Downey Jnr telling a story to the guys in prison, but Cumberbatch looks as though he'd be unable to speak to anyone who didn't go to RADA. Finally, it's amusing that the BBC adap did the Hollywood prequel thing of 'showing how Holmes and Watson met up' - something that I had no interest in seeing. Ritchie's effort did the more interesting thing of showing the relationship when it was already at breaking point - which was a lot of fun. I thought the sequence where Downey Jnr improvises the disguise was brilliant - it was such a departure from the usual interpretation of Holmes as a bit of a luvvie. (I would, sadly, agree with Batman above who says that Downey mumbled his lines - he did and it was very difficult to hear!)

What now was the point of sticking the character of Irene Adler into an entirely original story where she obviously didn't belong in the first film, if you're now going to drop her as the female lead in the sequel?? I figured they'd only bother to have her shoehorned into the beginning of the overall story like that because they had a more far reaching plan for her.

...but left no lasting impression besides some good, snappy, man love banter between Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law.<P>
The fight scenes were surprisingly good too.

Sept. 12, 2010, 9:55 a.m. CST

by FreeBeer

Rapace has said that if she was asked to reprise her role in the American remake she would not. She said she is done with the role and it's time to move on. Har dto blame her I mean it's not just reprising the role, it's playing the same character in the same story again, what's the point from her pint of view creatively speaking.

Why? Seriously, just why? Because Hollywood assumes most Americans are too fucking stupid to follow a subtitled film?<p>The whole idea is as pointless as it is insulting. Boycotting and avoiding at this end...

Since it has his name and all. Ritchie and that twat who wrote it should be forced to watch every episode of the new BBC "Sherlock" about four hundred times before they even attempt this again. Fuck, man, when even a TV show gets it right, but you can't...<p>(The preceding was meant, in no way, to dismiss the brilliant work done by Moffat, Gattis, and crew on the new Sherlock. Starting my second round of the whole series again today. Great show and a fucking primer on how re-inventions should be done.)

Sadly, I know alot of people who don't watch foreign films because they have to "read them". I give a pass to my buddy with dyslexia and could struggle keeping up (he has to read slowly and has had to pause subtitled films to read the dialogue in the past) and my Dad who has vision problems with reading, but for the average person there's no excuse for not watching a subtitled film. Its just lazy.

You read it in the posts about Martin Freeman juggling new Sherlock and Bilbo Baggins- he's already re-upped. BTW, Dr. Watson's girlfriend on the show is an adorable hottie. Most of the movie Sherlocks: very little like the real Holmes, who is edgy, mean and a bit rough-and-tumble. Earlier movie Sherlocks are far more like Roger Moore's James Bond- metrosexual pansies. Ugh. Finally, re: Noomi Rapace: If you haven't seen the movies, STFU. These stock photos leave no impression, but to see her in the movies, she is GORGEOUS. A force of nature, and very hot indeed. She could totally kick all your asses. On screen she looks nothing like Adam Lambert- about whom everything is plastic and fake- his persona, his "talent"- "ooh ooh ooh I kissed a boy and I liked it!" . I just threw up a little in my mouth. Hey kid, you greasy little mofo- if you want to see how it's done by big boys, go watch Alex Skarsgard on True Blood. Now THATS the way to do the boy-on-boy makeout scene.

There will be another series of Sherlock - the BBC has already commissioned it.
<p>I'll stick my neck out here and say Martin Freeman will absolutely be back as Watson ... and I can give you <i>7 million</i> reasons why if you'd like?</p>
<p>As far as I know, his involvement in The Hobbit hasn't been officially confirmed yet, but still ... even so, apparently he's negotiating with the BBC to work out a way he can film both projects.</p>
<p>I thought 'Sherlock' was a brilliant reinterpretation ... the only negative was it was only 3 episodes... I think 6 would have been for a series.</p>
<p>It's a long time to wait for only 3 episodes, even if they are longer ... still, it makes the DVD cheaper :o)</p>

of the character. It was still a fun movie, even if it wasn't classically Sherlock Holmes. It also wasn't a great movie, but a fun one, nonetheless. Anyway, really digging the casting of Rapace! I also don't see the point of remaking Dragon Tattoo, but if I don't feel like seeing it, I just won't. Doesn't really bother me either way.

"it's amusing that the BBC adap did the Hollywood prequel thing of 'showing how Holmes and Watson met up' - something that I had no interest in seeing." - er ... no, that first episode was a surprisingly faithful adaptation (despite the update) of the first book (A Study In Scarlet) - where Holmes and Watson meet for the first time in pretty much exactly the same way. Not exactly 'Hollywood' ...<p><br><p>Personally, I loved the movie - the Jeremy Brett TV series/movies did 'faithful' to perfection, so why try to do the same thing again? In the books Holmes is a bare-knuckle fighter, martial artist etc., only you don't actually see much of it. I also love the new TV series. Seems like a win/win ...

the look of Brett, Rathbone, or the first description in the stories: "...As the weeks went by, my interest in him and my curiosity as to his
aims in life, gradually deepened and increased. His very person and
appearance were such as to strike the attention of the most casual
observer. In height he was rather over six feet, and so excessively
lean that he seemed to be considerably taller. His eyes were sharp and
piercing, save during those intervals of torpor to which I have alluded;
and his thin, hawk-like nose gave his whole expression an air of
alertness and decision. His chin, too, had the prominence and squareness
which mark the man of determination. His hands were invariably
blotted with ink and stained with chemicals, yet he was possessed of
extraordinary delicacy of touch, as I frequently had occasion to observe
when I watched him manipulating his fragile philosophical instruments..."<p>Something different was welcome.

And loved about five or ten of them. Downey's interpretation was as valid as any--but different, of course. But totally based on what Doyle said in his books and stories. And to present Holmes as a fighter, damned near for the first time, was a welcome change. What idiot would spend tons of time on the docks and criminal regions if he couldn't defend himself? Yet I've seen Holmes (Murder by Decree, for instance) depicted as almost physically helpless. Bullshit.

I'm confused by your statement... there were three episodes of BBC's Sherlock, only one of which was written by Steven Moffat (Study in Pink). I'm guessing by your statement that you liked only 2 of the 3 episodes... Which other episode (besides Study in Pink) were you referring to?

I thought the Downey Jr movie was closer to the novels than most of the previous movies, especially where Watson was concerned. Yes, they were a bit more action-y than perhaps necessary, but the action was not completely unjustified (this was usually implied in the novels, but not described outright). That said, Rachel McAdams was TERRIBLE and I would be very happy if she did not come back.
<p>BBC's Sherlock was closer, IMO. There was action, such as in the beginning of the Blind Banker, that was completely hidden from Watson (who was the "author" in the stories).

The only good thing in the movies is Noomi Rapace. the story is predictable as a calendar, the lead male is laugable and the whole hacker stuff is pathetic. Seriously, I can't imagine a reason to remale this messy trilogy. Fincher can't be save this franchise by itself.